Talk:Honda CB77

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Sources exist saying that this was the bike that Robert M. Pirsig rode on the trip that Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is based on. This tidbit seems to have come to light many years after the book was published and rose to fame, and it doesn't seem to have come from Pirsig himself. In the novel -- it is a fiction, not a literal travelogue -- the make and model of his bike is never hinted at, and in fact he is critical of his friend's pride in owning an example the BMW brand. So no evidence is given for why it matters in the book what kind of bike it was, and it even seems the bike is supposed to be generic or anonymous.As far as whether the novel affected the popularity of the bike in the used and collector market, that's a good theory. If any authority were to claim that this was the case, it might meet the criteria in WP:WPACT, but otherwise, it's pure trivia.On the other hand, you could argue that no fewer than three published authors, cited above, cared enough to mention that this was "the bike" from Pirsig's book, and therefore we should consider it an important fact. --Dbratland (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the first mention that it was a Superhawk was probably 1991, when Pirsig was doing some interviews for the release of Lila: An Inquiry into Morals. See Zen and Now Robert M. Pirsig rode a `Motorcycle' to fame. He's back with a bleaker tale of troubled times. Elizabeth Mehren. Los Angeles Times. Oct 11, 1991. pg. 1. --Dbratland (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I reverse myself. I find my second argument more compelling than my first. The fact that a series of sources from 1991 through 2011 find it worthwhile to mention that Pirsig's bike was a CB77 means we should follow suit. --Dbratland (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It may have taken years for the first mention to appear in print (and citable sources are needed, obviously) but on the 'generic or anonymous' point, it is perfectly obvious to anyone with prior knowledge reading 'Zen' that the 'bike is a CB77. (A C200 is mentioned also) 86.181.177.63 (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Obvious because of what? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for example:
 * In chapter 2 - 28 horse, air-cooled, four-stroke, with chain-driven overhead cam
 * In chapter 3 - 95 mph at 9000 rpm (these are Pirsig's on-the-road readings, not test-bed)
 * In chapter 6 - chain drive to rear wheel
 * In chapter 8 - two cylinders - 86.181.177.63 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BMW
I think the brief mention of the Sutherland's BMW and its fate should remain in the article. It provides contrast and context for the discussion of the fate of Pirsig's motorcycle. It's telling that he made a point of mentioning the make of the other bike, because of BMW's brand image, yet in the space of hundreds of pages where he talked about his own bike, he chose to hold back the make and model. In spite of the well-defined but much different Honda brand image in the 1960s. And it's an interesting contrast that the bike in the supporting role is out there on the market and the lead bike still has its original owner. These aren't just my opinions about what's worth covering; the sources cited do the same thing: in discussing the CB77, they go out of their way to talk about the BMW alongside it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Another reason for describing the fate of both bikes is they share a similar origin: they were both the real-life basis for bikes in a fictionalized account. The BMW went on to become a prized collectors item, which presumably would be what would have happened to Pirsig's CB77 if he had sold it, and what will happen if it is ever sold. And, to repeat from many other discussions, there's no Wikipedia rule that you can't mention things in articles other than the subject. You can mention things which are similar to, parallel to, or contrast with, the article subject, to provide context, or by way of illustration. Or simply for no reason except our sources see fit to lump them together. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

ZAMM photos
Is this the original source of the ZAMM photos? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think so. The person who posted them says that he got them from the author himself. — Brianhe (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox bore and stroke
These were 60 and 54 millimetres, not as shown.

81.153.204.210 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cycle World May '62 has it wrong; they probably used 54mm the bore of the CB72. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Compression ratio
The quoted value - 10.0:1 - was distinctly sporty for the time. What is the source for this number? It's certainly not supported by Honda's own shop manual.

81.149.13.39 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 10:1, 28hp@9000 rpm, comes from the May 1962 Cycle World, which I think is an error, though not too far out of the ballpark. Bacon gives these values for the 305.4 twins:

Model	Year	Compression	HP C77	1963	8.2		23@7500 C78	1963	8.2		23@7500 CB77	1963	9.5		28.5@9000 CL77	1966	9.5		28.5@9000 CR77	1962	10.5		47@12,500	(production racer)
 * Mick Walker's Honda Production Motorcycles agrees with 9.5, so I don't think there was a special 10:1 US CB77 Super Hawk, though it's not totally out of the question I suppose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is conceivable that US gas had a higher octane rating to sustain the higher CR at that time, vice Europe. Brianhe (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But they ought to have claimed more horsepower than the UK version, rather than .5 hp lower. If the US model were touted as more powerful I could buy a different compression, but where's the payoff? Aaron Frank has a whole chapter on how the CB77 was the first Honda built to the specifications of the US market, at the request of Jack McCormack, that it was targeted against British twins, to be Honda's first "real" motorcycle, and how McCormack said Honda, unlike his old employer, Triumph, actually cared what the customer thought. There's also a separate sidebar on the CB77. Yet nowhere in all that is any mention of variation in US compression. A few other books like Walker's History of Motorcycles point out that the US CB77 went by the name "Super Hawk" but they make mention of no other difference except the name. Falloon's The Honda Story recites the 8.2 vs 9.5 compression ratios of the C77, CL77 etc. Falloon also mentions that the early 250, the CB72 Hawk of 1960, did have 10:1 compression, but it was lowered to 9.5 to 1 in 1961. I can see how Cycle World might have gotten confused. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping it's true that the US bike really was 10:1. It would be kind of cool. But really? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if a museum curator would be abke able to run this to ground? Barber for instance, or LeMay in Tacoma? Brianhe (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Roustabout pop culture references
I removed mention of Elvis Presely riding a CB77 in Roustabout (film) since it's entirely unsourced and needs a reliable source that tells us why it matters that they rode this bike instead of that bike. We aren't going to list every single time someone in a movie drinks a Coke or has a Mr. Coffee on their kitchen counter, unless a source tells us why. That is actually doable, since I turned up the following: I'd still write a paragraph (but don't dump it in a pop culture section) about this and cite Wasef and Aaron Frank, saying that the studios feared too much of an outlaw image and so toned it down by choosing a less sinister seeming motorcycle brand for the movie. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Honda by Aaron Frank supports the choice of the CB77 as the "only choice" to give Elvis an "outlaw edge" without being too outlaw.
 * Here we have "Elvis typically rode a Harley, but in the 1964 film Roustabout, he gave Barbara Stanwyck a ride on a highly modern, technologically advanced 305cc Honda CB77. It signaled the coming of the Japanese invasion that would brig the British motorcycle industry to its knees." This implies they chose the Honda because of technology, and implies the alternative would have been a British bike, not a Harley. Keep in mind, this book is self published so I wouldn't cite it unless I saw multiple sources citing the book as reliable. Right now I only see one TV news item that quotes the author.
 * 365 Motorcycles You Must Ride name-drops Roustabout and Serpico, but lacks any reason why it matters.
 * This Hal Wallis biography says it irritated Presley's manager that Honda saw a print of Roustabout before release, but I can't see why this detail matters, at least not in relation to the CB77.
 * This is another example of mentioning that the Honda was in an Elvis film, but gives no explanation for why we should care. Many of these types of sources seem to assume that in 1963 Presley could dictate which bike he rode in a movie, while more authoritative sources make clear that the movie studios made these decisions, regardless Presley's personal liking for Harleys.
 * This is a similar example, like 365 Motorcycles and others, that throws the fact out there but doesn't give any insight.
 * This is a similar example, like 365 Motorcycles and others, that throws the fact out there but doesn't give any insight.

I'd also include that Aaron Frank said that Roustabout boosted Honda's popularity and sales. I haven't verified it, but it appears the real life Frank Serpico rode a Honda, and so realism was the only reason Al Pacino rode one in the film Serpico. If there were more significant relevance than that, it could be worth mentioning also. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)